2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-24-2008 

# D e Guzm an v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3947

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D e G uzm an v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1710. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1710NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o: 06- 3947

_______________ CR I S OS T OM O M AC AR AE G DE GUZ M AN, Pet i t i oner v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

________________ Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 72- 747- 583) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e H e n ryS . D o g in

_______________ A r gued J anuary7, 2008 B e f o re : F U E N T E S a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudges a n d O ’N E IL L * , D is tr i ct Judge. ( Fi l ed: J anuary24, 2008 )

_______________

_______________ * H o n o rab le T h o m as N . O ’N eil l, Jr. , U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtJu d g e f o r th e E astern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e BI A’ s f i n a l d e c i s i o n p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S . C. 1 § 1 25 2(a) (1) . T he C ou rt ’s revi ew of the B IA ’s l egal det erm i nati on s i s de novo . P ar t yka v. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 1 7 F . 3 d 4 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). In c ase s w h ere the B IA ad o p ts th e IJ’s d e c is io n , w e m a yre v ie w th e IJ ’s o p in io n . Shah v. A t t or ney G ener al , 446 F. 3d 429, 434 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n r e v i e w i n g f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s , “ [ t ] h e C o u r tw i l l u p h o l d th e a g e n c y's fi ndi ngs of fa ctt o t he ext entthattheyar e s uppor t ed byr eas onabl e, s ubs t ant i al , and pr obat i ve evi dence on the r ecor d cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” G a o v . A sh c ro ft , 299 F. 3d 266, 2 7 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). 2 Ra ymo n d P . D’ Uv a [ AR GUE D] L aw O ffi ces of R aym ond P. D ’ U va 17 A cade m ySt r eet- #1000 N ew ark, N J 07102 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner R i char d M . E vans Paul Fi or i no Ko h s e i Ug u mo r i [ AR GUE D] U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O . B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . Pet i t i oner , C r i s os t om o M aca r aeg D e G uzman, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of the Phi l i ppi nes , s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s ued aga i ns thi m bythe B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe B I A di d noterri n aff i r m i ng th e d e c i s i o n o f

th e I mm i g r a t i o n J u d g e ( “ I J ” ) , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 13

I . Backg r ound D e G uzman arr i ved i n N ew ark, N ew J er s eyon J anuary21, 1994 w i th hi s w i fe, M i r i am A l coy( “M i r i am”) , w ho had an H - 1 vi s a, and he w as admi t t ed on J anuary24, 19 94 as an H -4 non i m m i grantderi vati ve. O n M ay2, 19 94 , based o n an app roved v i sa pet i t i on fi l ed byM i r i am on hi s behal f, D e G uzman’ s s t atus w as adj us t ed t o perm anent l egal r es i dent . O n J une 21, 2004, how ever , the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty( the

“ D H S ” ) s e rv e d D e G u z m a n w ith a N o tic e to A p p e a r i n R e m o v a l P ro c e e d in g s (“ N T A ” ). H e w as char ged w i th r emovabi l i typur s uantt o § 237 a) ( 1) ( A ) of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “I N A ”) , 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 1) ( A ) , forbei ng i nadmi s s i bl e atthe t i m e of h i s e n trya n d a tth e t i me o f h i s a d j u s t me n to f

s t a tu s u n d e rI NA § 2 1 2 ( a ) , 8 U. S . C. § 1 1 8 2 (a), b ec au se: (1) h e a ll eg ed lyd id n o t po sses s a v ali d en tryv isa at th e ti m e o f e n try i nt o the U ni t ed St at es , I N A § 212 ( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( I ) , 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( C ) ( I ) and ( 2) he a lleg e d lyc o m m itt e d f

ra u d o r w ill f

u l m isre p re se n tatio n o f

a m a ter ial f

a c t in se e k in g to pr ocur e a vi s a, ot herdocument at i on, orotherbenef i tpr ovi ded underthe I N A i n ent er i ng the U n it ed S tat es, IN A § 2 1 2 (a)(7)(A )(i )(I ), 8 U . S . C . § 1 1 8 2 (a(7 )(A )(i )(I ). T h e re m o v a b ili tyc h a rg e s s tem m e d f ro m D H S ’s d isc o v e ryth a t, pr io r to h is m a rr ia g e to M ir ia m in 1 9 9 3 , D e G u z m a n w a s m a rr ie d to H e le n G a rr o v illa s (“ H e le n ” ). D H S as s ert s thatD e G uzman w as s t i l l m arr i ed t o H el en w hen he marr i ed M i r i am, and thathe fr audul ent l yconce al ed thatfac ti n or dert o gai n entryi nt o the U ni t ed St at es and adj us t m entof s t atus thr ough hi s m arr i age t o M i r i am. A tan A ugus t29, 2005 hear i ng4

befor e an I J , D e G uzman t es t i fi ed thathe bel i eved thathi s m arr i age t o H el en had be en l egal l yt erm i nat ed i n 1991 due t o herabandonmentof hi m , caus i ng hi m t o bel i eve thathe c o u ld m a rryM iriam in 1 9 9 3 w ith o u t f irst se c u rin g a d iv o rc e o r a n n u lm e n t to e n d h is m a rria g e to H e len . In 2 0 0 3 , D e G u z m a n d id o b tain a n a n n u lm e n t o f h is m a rria g e to H e le n . D e G uzman fi l ed a mot i on t o t erm i nat e the r emoval pr ocee di ngs bas ed upon D H S’ s fai l ur e t o comm ence the pr ocee di ngs w i thi n fi ve y ear s of hi s adj us t m entof s t atus t o perm anentr es i dent , pur s uantt o I N A § 246, 8 U . S. C . § 1256. H e al s o ar gued thatt he re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s s h o u ld b e ter m in a ted b e c a u se h e h a d o b tain e d a n a n n u lm e n t o f h is fi r s tm arr i age, eff

ect i vel ynegat i ng thatm arr i age’ s exi s t ence aft erthe fa ctand r ender i ng h is 19 9 3 m arriage to M ir iam v ali d . O n M arc h 1 , 2 0 0 5 , the IJ d en ied D e G u zm an ’s m o tio n to te rm in a te . D e G uzman t hen fi l ed an appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , t o be cons i der ed i n conj unct i on w i th t he r emoval pr ocee di ngs , cl ai m i ng thathi s r emoval t o the Phi l i ppi nes w oul d r es ul ti n hi s U . S. ci t i zen c hi l dr en expe r i enci ng exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual h ard sh ip. H e a ll eg ed that b o th ch il d ren h av e se v ere asth m a, w h ich re q u ir es m ed ical care and the us e of i nhal er s and otherbr eathi ng devi ces . O n A ugus t29, 2005, the I J deni ed D e G u z m a n ’s a p p lica tio n , fin d in g th a t h is c h ild re n ’s a sth m a w a s n o t se v e re e n o u g h to c o n s titu te e x c e p tio n a l a n d e x tr e m e ly u n u s u a l h a rd s h ip .T he B I A deni ed D e G uzman’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der , and he ha s notpet i t i oned for 2 re v ie w o f

th a t d e c is io n . 5 D e G u zm an ap p ea led th e IJ’s d ec isi o n to the B IA , an d o n A u g u st 2, 20 0 6 , the B IA adopt ed and a ffi r m ed both the dec i s i on t o denythe mot i on t o t erm i nat e r emoval and the deci s i on t o denycanc el l at i on of r emoval . O n A ugus t31, 2006, D e G uzman fi l ed w i th t he B I A a mot i on t o r econs i der . A tthe s ame t i m e, he fi l ed i n thi s C our thi s pet i t i on for re v ie w o f

th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . W e w ill d e n yth e p e titio n f o r r e v ie w . 2 I I . D i s cus s i on A . D e G uz m an’ s M ot i on t o Ter m i nat e t he R e m ov alPro c e e di ngs Purs uant t o 8 U . S. C . § 1256( a) D e G u z m a n a rg u e s th a t, fo r tw o re a so n s, th e IJ a n d B IA e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to ter m in a te th e re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s. F irst, h e a ss e rts th a t th e m o tio n to t erm i nat e s houl d have be en gr ant ed bec aus e, contr aryt o I N A § 246, 8 U . S. C . § 1256, t he D H S fai l ed t o comm ence the r emoval pr ocee di ngs w i thi n fi ve y ear s of hi s adj us t m entof sta tu s to p e rm a n e n t re sid e n t in 1 9 9 4 . S e c o n d , h e m a in tain s th a t th e m o tio n to ter m in a te s houl d have be en gr ant ed bec aus e i n 2003 he obt ai ned an a nnul m entof hi s fi r s tm arr i age, w h ic h v o id e d th a t m a rr ia g e f ro m th e b e g in n in g . 1. Fi ve - yea r l i m i t at i ons pe r i od. W ith resp ec t t o D H S ’s fa il u re to c o m m en ce rem o v al pro ce ed ing s w ith in f ive y ea rs of the adj us t m entof hi s s t atus , D e G uzman ar gues that , notonl ydoes I N A § 246,IN A § 24 6, 8 U . S . C . § 12 56 , st at es: 3 I f, atanyt i m e w i thi n fi ve y ear s aft erthe s t atus of a pe r s on has been otherw i se adj ust ed u nd er the p rovi si on s of sect i on 12 55 or 125 9 o f t his ti tl e o r an yo ther p rov isi o n o f law to tha t of an ali en law fu ll yad m itted f o r p e r m a n e n tr e s i d e n c e , i ts h a l l a p p e a rt o th e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f th e A t t o rn e y G ener al thatthe per s on w as noti n fac tel i gi bl e fors uch adj us t m entof s t atus , the A t t orneyG ener al s hal l r es ci nd the ac t i on t aken gr ant i ng an adj us t m entof s t atus t o s uch per s on and ca ncel l i ng r emoval i n the ca s e of s uch per s on i f thatoccurr ed and the per s on s hal l ther eupon be s ubj ectt o al l pr ovi s i ons of thi s chapt ert o the s ame ext entas i f the adj us t m entof s t atus had notbeen made. N othi ng i n thi s s ubs ect i on s hal l r equi r e the A t t orneyG ener al t o r es ci nd the al i en’ s s t atus pr i ort o comm ence m entof pr ocedur es t o r emove t he al i en unders ect i on 1229a of thi s t i t l e, and an or derof r emoval i s s ued byan i m m i gr at i on j udge s hal l be s uffi ci entt o re s c in d th e a lie n ’s s ta tu s . 6 8 U . S. C . § 1256, expr es s l ypr ovi de fora fi ve- y eart i m e l i m i ton r emoval pr ocee di ngs , but 3 ourdeci s i on i n Ba mi d e l e v . I NS , 99 F. 3d 557 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , nece s s i t at es the i m pos i t i on of the fi ve- y earl i m i t . W e di s agr ee. T he expr es s l anguage of I N A § 246 onl ypr ovi des fora fi ve- y earl i m i t at i ons per i od o n re s c is s io n p ro c e e d in g s . S e e A sika v . A sh c ro ft , 362 F. 3d 264, 267 ( 4th C i r . 2004) (“ [ O ]n its o w n ter m s, se c tio n 2 4 6 (a ) d isc u ss e s o n lyth e re sc iss io n o f sta tu s a d ju stm e n ts a n d d o e s n o t p u rp o rt to lim it th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s p o w e r o f d e p o rta tio n .”). T h e sta tu te does notext end the l i m i t at i ons per i od t o r emoval pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch, gener al l ys peaki ng, can be i ns t i tut ed atanyt i m e. C ontr aryt o D e G uzman’ s ar gum ent , the s econd s ent ence of th e s ta tu te d o e s n o t s h o w th a t a n o rd e r o f re m o v a l is e q u iv a le n t to a n o rd e r o f re s c is s io n . T he tw o p roceedings ar e no tequ i valent , becau se r esci ssi on , un l i ke rem ov al , corr ect s a m i s t aken gr antof adj us t m entof s t atus byr eturni ng an al i en t o hi s or i gi nal s t atus ; once7

re tu rn e d to h is o ri g in a l s ta tu s , th e a lie n c a n re -a p p ly f o r a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . See 8 U . S. C . § 1256( a) ( s t at i ng i f m i s t ake w as m ade i n adj us t i ng s t atus , A t t orneyG ener al sh all resc ind ac ti o n g ran ti n g ad justm en t) ; A s i ka , 362 F. 3d at268 ( hol di ng A t t orney G ener al has pow ert o r es ci nd err oneous l ygr ant ed adj us t m ent s of s t atus ) . A s a l egal cons equenc e, an or derof r emoval can r es ul ti n a r es ci s s i on of s t atus , butthatdoes not m e a n re m o v a l a n d re s c is s io n m u s t b e tr e a te d e q u iv a le n tly u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . D e G uzman’ s r el i ance on B am i del e i s al so m i spl aced b ecause B am i del e is di s t i ngui s habl e on i t s fac t s . I n B a m ide le , the g o v ern m en t bec am e a w are w ith in f ive y ea rs of the al i en’ s adj us t m entof s t atus thatthe al i en w as actual l yi nel i gi bl e forthat adj us t m ent . D es pi t e know i ng of thati nel i gi bi l i ty , and know i ng i tw i thi n the l i m i t at i ons per i od, the governm entfai l ed t o t ake a ct i on fors i x y ear s . I n thi s cas e, bycontr as t , the g o v e rn m e n t w a s u n a w a re o f D e G u z m a n ’s a lleg e d in e lig ib ili tyto a d ju st s tatu s u n til al m os tt en y ear s aft erhe had be en gr ant ed perm anentr es i dence s t atus . O nce i tl earned of th e i n e l i g i b i l i ty , i tmo v e d t o b e g i n th e r e mo v a l p r o c e e d i n g s . Wh e n a n a l i e n , l i k e De G u z m a n , h a s c o n c e a led in f o rm a tio n f

ro m th e g o v e rn m e n t, he c a n n o t p ro p e rlya sk u s to tr eatthe fi ve- y eart i m e l i m i tas a bar . T her efor e, the I J w as corr ecti n di s t i ngui s hi ng B a m ide le o n th e f

a c ts . 2. E f

f ect of 2003 annu l m ent on m arri age t o M i ri am D e G u z m a n a rg u e s th a t th e IJ e rre d in h o ld in g th a t th e 2 0 0 3 a n n u lm e n t o f h is m arr i age t o H el en di d notr enderhi s 1993 m arr i age t o M i r i am val i d. H e mai nt ai ns that8

the annul m enter as ed anym i s r epr es ent at i on beca us e i tvoi ded hi s m arr i age t o H el en ab in iti o . I n th e e v e n tth a tw e f i n d th a tth e a n n u l m e n tc a n n o tb e a p p l i e d r e tr o a c t i v e l y, Pet i t i oneral s o ar gues thathe di d nothave the r equi s i t e m ens r ea t o comm i tfr aud. A s not ed bythe I J , A r t i cl e 41 of the Fami l yC ode of the Phi l i ppi nes pr ovi des t hat “[a ] m arr i age c ontr act ed byanyper s on dur i ng s ubs i s t ence of a pr evi ous m arr i age s hal l be nu l l and vo i d, un l ess before the celebrat i on of the subsequ ent m arr i age, the p ri or spouse had bee n abs entforfourcons ecut i ve y ear s and the s pous e pr es enthas a w el l - founded bel i ef thatthe abs ents pous e w as al r eadydead. ” ( A . R . at512. ) B eca us e D e G uzman m ade no c l ai m thathe bel i eved H el en w as dead pr i ort o hi s m arry i ng M i r i am, and he ac tuallyreturn ed to the P h il ipp ines to an n u l his m arriage to H elen in 2 0 0 3 , the IJ a n d B IA d id n o t e rr in c o n c lu d in g th a t h is m a rr ia g e to M ir ia m w a s n u ll a n d v o id a t its in c e p tio n . D e G uzman’ s 2003 annul m entdi d notr emedythe mi s r epr es ent at i on thatthe I J found he h a d m a d e to th e g o v e rn m e n t, b e c a u s e th e s e c o n d m a rr ia g e w a s n e v e r l e g a l to b e g in w ith . Fur therm or e, ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthe I J ’ s fi ndi ng th a t D e G u z m a n k n o w in g lym isre p re se n ted to th e g o v e rn m e n t h is m a rital s tatu s. In ten t to d e c e iv e is n o t a n e c e s s a ry e le m e n t o f a v io la tio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 1 8 2 (a )( 6 )( C )( I) . K n o w le d g e th a t a re p re s e n ta tio n is f a ls e is a lo n e s u f

f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h a v io la tio n . M wo n g e r a v . I

NS , 1 8 7 F .3 d 3 2 3 , 3 3 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). B e c a u se D e G u z m a n k n e w th a t h is m a rria g e to H e len w a s n e ith e r a n n u lled , n o r e n d e d in d iv o rc e p rio r to h is m a rria g e to M i r i am, ther e i s s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tthe conc l us i on thathe knew hi s m arr i age9

t o M i r i am w as nul l and voi d, and henc e t o concl ude thathi s m i s r epr es ent at i on w as d e lib e ra te a n d v o lu n ta ry. Fi nal l y , the I J w as corr ecti n hol di ng that , even i f D e G uzman’ s 2003 annul m ent voi ded hi s m arr i age t o H el en a b in iti o , itd id n o t ch a n g e th e f a c t th a t, at th e tim e o f

h is entryand of hi s adj us t m entof s t atus , he w as i nadmi s s i bl e. H e had a l r eadym i s r epr es ent ed hi s m ar i t al s t atus , and the mi s r epr es ent at i on di d notevapor at e w hen he l at eracqui r ed an a n n u lm e n t. B . T h e Im m igra ti o n J u d g e’s D ete rm ina ti o n th a t P etiti o n er F a il ed to Est abl i s h t hat H i s R e m ov alW oul d R e s ul t i n Ex c e pt i ona l and Ex t r e m e l y U nus ualH ar ds hi p t o hi s C hi l dr e n D e G uzman se eks r evi ew of the I J ’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on for canc el l at i on of r emoval . H e ar gues thatthe I J ’ s deci s i on thathi s chi l dr en’ s as thm a w as n o t se v e re e n o u g h to c o n stitu te e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip w a s c lea rly err oneous and notbas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence , and he mai nt ai ns thatw e have ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w th e IJ ’s d e c is io n o n th is p o in t b e c a u s e it is a q u e s tio n o f la w . W e a re n o t u n sy m p a th e tic to D e G u z m a n ’s a ss e rtio n s a b o u t h is f a m ily c irc u m sta n c e s. N o th in g in o u r d e c isio n to d a ysh o u ld im p lyo th e rw ise . N e v e rth e les s, h is ar gum entruns afoul of ourhol di ng i n Me n d ez-Mo ra n c h e l v. A sh c ro ft , 338 F. 3d 176, 178- 7 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), w h ere in w e h eld th at th e d eterm ination o f w h ethe r an ap p li ca n t’ s chil dren w ou l d suff

er excepti on al and extr em el yun usual hardshi p u po n h i s r em ov al i s a10

m att erw i thi n the compl et e di s cr et i on of the A t t orneyG ener al . C ons equent l y , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thi s as pectof the I J ’ s deci s i on. I I I . C oncl usi on F o r th e re aso n s stated, w e w il l den ythe p eti ti o n fo r rev iew an d af firm the B IA ’s or deruphol di ng the I J ’ s deci s i on.